Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's 2007 lineup totally revealed

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2007 11:38:03 AM

More about : amd 2007 lineup totally revealed

March 14, 2007 11:52:14 AM

OMG! AMD is actually going to release CPU's in the Sub 1000's, Very Very Impressive AMD :D 

*I can say Sub-1000's because their Quad FX CPU with the highest Ghz is 999$ so the 1.9Ghz-2.3Ghz should be around 300-600$Range
So the Dual-Core Kuma's should be in 200-400$Range(maybe more if they truly are 40% better)

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ :p  )
March 14, 2007 12:02:53 PM

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.
Related resources
March 14, 2007 12:27:51 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.


Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2007 12:53:32 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.


Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Well said. I'll keep on buying AMD. It's not because I think AMD is so great nor am I a fanboy. I just simply refuse to spend any more of my money with Intel. They milked me for enough cash through the 90's.
March 14, 2007 1:06:42 PM

Quote:

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ :p  )


Seems very simple:

the X2 has 2 cores, and the X4 has 4 cores...

the X2 1900 and the X4 1900 have 1.9GHz, the X2 2100 and X4 2100 have 2.1GHz...

If this is gona be it, it does seems alot easier than other naming schemes (until a core review is going to mess this up).
March 14, 2007 1:08:38 PM

ooohhhh. i think i wanna buy an agena x4 2100 :D  sounds good to me!
March 14, 2007 1:09:02 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.


Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Competion is a wonderfull thing (except when it's cut-throat competion)...

if there was no competion we would still be using the 8086 cpu from intel (and this goes either way).

Who believes we would have C2D today if it wasn't for the K8?
March 14, 2007 1:15:20 PM

I'm not terribly impressed with the TDP ratings. I would hope that AMD could bring more efficient processors considering the new architecture and the maturing of the 65nm process. What I mean is that why are their higher-end dual-cores rated at 89W? They'd better do extremely well against the C2D in order to keep performance/watt competitive.

Also, now that Intel has released low-wattage 53xx parts, I think AMD might have a tougher sell with 95 and 120W Opterons. Again, performance/watt is very important in this market, so AMD better have the performance to justify the heat.

I'll be sticking to the lower-wattage parts myself. If I want high performance (and heat) I'll just overclock.

And I like the naming convention. If AMD keeps things simple in terms of the same amount of cache across a family, then why not just say how many cores and what clock speed? I think consumers are starting to realise that clocks only count within a given family.
March 14, 2007 1:19:00 PM

But remember AMD is Implementing AM2+ for Core Throttling and HT3
So Heating and TDP won't be anything huge with C'n Q Enabled. Expect to see no voltage or heating problems, they should be virtually non-comparison to the QuadFX processors.
March 14, 2007 1:26:24 PM

I notice the poster's name in that forum is W0mbat is he any relation to you per chance?

I just thought it funny that the inquirer posted this as fact when they probably don't know this guy from Adam.
March 14, 2007 1:26:50 PM

LOL, one should hope not! In any case, one 120W Agena should outperform two 125W QuadFX chips, so certainly improvement is in the pipe.

For me, I'm not concerned with power consumption with Cool'n'Quiet and idle settings, since my processors actually work for a living. I wonder what cpu loads in server farms are like, but to me what really matters is how much heat you have to deal with when you're running 80%+ CPU utilisation 24/7.
March 14, 2007 1:46:14 PM

Quote:
OMG! AMD is actually going to release CPU's in the Sub 1000's, Very Very Impressive AMD :D 

*I can say Sub-1000's because their Quad FX CPU with the highest Ghz is 999$ so the 1.9Ghz-2.3Ghz should be around 300-600$Range
So the Dual-Core Kuma's should be in 200-400$Range(maybe more if they truly are 40% better)

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ :p  )


The sub 1000 release is entirely AMD's doing since they have fallen substantially behind Intel in performance (12 months). If Barcelona had released right after Core2Duo they could have went over 1000 but by release time the Core2Duo will have been out for a year and already have dropped 30% in price with Penryn warming up for launch.

The naming thanks to Intel and Core2Duo is relatively straight forward #cores and clock speed. Core2Duo finally put an end to Intel pushing the Netburst megahertz myth.
March 14, 2007 1:49:36 PM

He's my German cousin twice removed.

Hilarious how the Inq immediately posted his stuff :lol: 
March 14, 2007 1:54:57 PM

Quote:
I notice the poster's name in that forum is W0mbat is he any relation to you per chance?

I just thought it funny that the inquirer posted this as fact when they probably don't know this guy from Adam.
Wombat is the lamer who faked a CPUz monitor photos. Consider any information from this dude as BS and not true. The table seems OK, but it is full of BS as much as the author:
All the K8 codenames Athlon64, Athlon64 FX, Athlon X2, Opteron and Sempron are going to be discountinued, and the K10 line will have new codenames Kuma, Agena FX, Agena, Barcelona and Rana respectively.
There will be no such thing as Agena, AgenaFX, Barcelona or Kuma core! The cores of all K10(K8L) CPUs are same and are K10(K8L). The physical differences of those CPUs will be the number of cores, the number of HTT links and the socket package, but their cores are all identical.

So, once again, WOMBAT is trolling around on the internet.I really don't get his point of faking and spreading BS. Maybe he needs some psychiatric help, so don't be mad on him.
March 14, 2007 2:37:37 PM

I must admit I was confused, because I thought Barcelona was only coming out on Socket F, whereas Agena and Kuma would come out on AM2 sockets.
March 14, 2007 2:45:01 PM

So in conclulsion: If it looks like BS and it smells like BS, but it happens to be posted in a language other than english, it is still BS.
March 14, 2007 2:46:30 PM

Well my Kazakh friend, just like every Opteron since Socket 939 has had a Desktop Opteron,
The Opteron 100 Series for Socket 939
The Opteron 1000 Series for Socket AM2
So the 1200 Series for Socket AM2 and AM2+ Would seem logical
March 14, 2007 3:04:00 PM

Let's just say Barcelona is going to be like having 4 of these Guys Working for your Floatpoint Operations (Saying: how could you possibly have the Heart to Overclock these Crazy Guys :p  )
Come on guy's Just look at these guys performing Instruction/Executions in the middle of the video :lol: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo

Just look at the Groundbreaking 8O Performance they exhibit near the ending, with the gears and sprockets all churning away on performing for you :D 
March 14, 2007 3:06:01 PM

Quote:
I'm not terribly impressed with the TDP ratings. I would hope that AMD could bring more efficient processors considering the new architecture and the maturing of the 65nm process. What I mean is that why are their higher-end dual-cores rated at 89W? They'd better do extremely well against the C2D in order to keep performance/watt competitive.

Also, now that Intel has released low-wattage 53xx parts, I think AMD might have a tougher sell with 95 and 120W Opterons. Again, performance/watt is very important in this market, so AMD better have the performance to justify the heat.

I'll be sticking to the lower-wattage parts myself. If I want high performance (and heat) I'll just overclock.

And I like the naming convention. If AMD keeps things simple in terms of the same amount of cache across a family, then why not just say how many cores and what clock speed? I think consumers are starting to realise that clocks only count within a given family.


because intel's TDP != AMDs TDP ?
besides, AMD never uses "typical load"
uses maximum ...
in short words.. AMD's =worst case generation, Intels = typical

id say we're gonna go into the ghz wars again as both will have similar performance...

also, like others said, with the advanced power scheme of amd, I think the energy wont be a problem.

Quote:
So in conclulsion: If it looks like BS and it smells like BS, but it happens to be posted in a language other than english, it is still BS.

Im preety sure all europeans, french, german & stuff, say "BULLS..." everytime bush says his speechs in english ;) 
March 14, 2007 3:18:44 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.





Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.


Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Wombat2 is absolutely correct. Let's take another angle at this since it keeps getting overlooked:
Intel had netburst around which we all know, was inferior to AMDs technology. During the entire tenure of netburst, AMD could've very easily dropped THEIR prices to undermine Intel at any given time much like they have now. Intel dropped their prices as, they are ahead of AMD in terms of technology which means, they can take advantage. AMD could have very much done the same thing but they didn't. Yes, the cost of producing those 90nm chips was a lot higher but, they certainly could've taken advantage of a larger animal by dropping their prices at a time when they were ahead of the game.

Just goes to show who has better marketing...
March 14, 2007 3:28:39 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.





Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.


Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Wombat2 is absolutely correct. Let's take another angle at this since it keeps getting overlooked:
Intel had netburst around which we all know, was inferior to AMDs technology. During the entire tenure of netburst, AMD could've very easily dropped THEIR prices to undermine Intel at any given time much like they have now. Intel dropped their prices as, they are ahead of AMD in terms of technology which means, they can take advantage. AMD could have very much done the same thing but they didn't. Yes, the cost of producing those 90nm chips was a lot higher but, they certainly could've taken advantage of a larger animal by dropping their prices at a time when they were ahead of the game.

Just goes to show who has better marketing...

you forgot something very important...
the CAPACITY in your equation...

if AMD lowered their prices,demand would be huge, and there wasnt a single oportunity to increase their production that fast..
March 14, 2007 3:59:43 PM

Intel and AMD have always had capacity issues in the past. My point did not include capacity issues as, I wasn't trying to make a point regarding capacity and output. My point is this: Intel isn't the only company that has the capability of making chip prices fluctuate. Yes, i'll agree there are many variables but all I've been reading is how Intel is merely responsible for the price war which isn't and/or does not have to be the case.
March 14, 2007 4:25:08 PM

I have to admit that rated TDP is at best an estimate. Within the same CPU family, even if all processors may be rated at 65W (like the C2D), the slower chips consume less power. I will be more interested in independent measurement of either system or CPU power draw at load, comparing the K10 to the K8 and C2D. It's another case of taking manufacturer's performance assersions with a grain of salt.

As far as Intel's TDP scheme, I've heard a lot of people talk about how Intel is more lenient with their specifications. However, articles I've read actually show that Intel's TDP is actually quite generous and in general you are not likely to ever reach or exceed the rated power. Here is one link that discusses the topic using THG numbers.

In another review I read a week ago (wish I could find it), a PD940 or similar chip running 100% CPU utilisation with superpi was measured to consume on the order of 80W, while I believe this chip is rated for 95 or 110W. I'm trying to find the link, but I don't know which review site that was.
March 14, 2007 4:38:44 PM

Are you PADI or SSI?

@ OP sorry for going off topic :wink:
March 14, 2007 4:59:11 PM

Here we go: an article from X-Bit where current through the CPU is measured to get CPU-only power consumption for idle and load. I'm pretty sure the AMD parts tested are 90nm only.

For example, the maximum power draw for the E6700 was 59W. That's 91% of it's rated TDP. On the AMD side, the maximum draw for the 5000+ was 100W, which is 112% of the rated TDP. It seems to me that AMD has some explaining to do, especially since they are the ones insisting that Intel's TDP values are underestimated.

The only Intel processor there that consumes a noteworthy amount more than the rated TDP is the PD820. All others either meet (within 1W) their rated power or are significantly below TDP.

EDIT: AMD is caught underestimating CPU power consumption again with their 65nm parts. The 4800+ consumed 78.5W, or 121% rated TDP. Interestingly, X-Bit got higher power draw with the E6400 as well, at 63W, but this is still below TDP.
March 14, 2007 5:17:43 PM

Better marketing? Looks to me, regardless of capacity, that AMD was stiffing the consumer. I paid almost $300 for my x2 3800 and six months later, after the launch of core 2, it was selling for under $200. If AMD wanted a larger share of the market, they should have priced their cpu's accordingly. As mentioned earlier, they most likely couldn't keep up with demand in that situation. So, what do they do? They keep prices up and juice the consumer for all they're worth. Especially given the fact that when I bought my first E6400, with a little overclocking, it totally trounced the FX 62. Maybe AMD didn't see it coming, but maybe they could have gained more market share by offering their cpu's at a lower price point. So now, they are forced to cut prices more and cut their bottom line again and again. If they were better marketers, they should have lowered their prices a year ago. Not to the levels they are now, but even a 25% discount in price would have made them more money while simultaneously keeping their bottom line at reasonble levels. Of course they cpu market is volatile and hard to predict, but that just shows the arrogance of AMD in regards to the strength of their aging architecture, and their lack of confidence in Intel to come back and regain the performance crown. I'm all for AMD succeeding, but they need to rethink their marketing strategy and pay closer attention to the competition.
March 14, 2007 5:32:39 PM

Whilst it would have been nice of AMD to lower their prices it would not have been prudent.

For the first time in AMDs history they were able to 'leap ahead' of Intel, AMD deserved to make as much money as possible off those chips, without it they would not be able to weather the current financial problems they are experiencing.

I'm sure that a price/performance comparison of cpus this time last year would show that AMD cpus were priced accordingly against Intel cpus. I remember that the Intel extreme editions processors were priced the same as to top rated FX chips.

I do get frakkin iritated when people go on about AMD processor prices.

When Intel ruled the world they set all the prices and made an absolute fortune off you and everyone else.

So if you got a problem with cpu prices take it up with Intel :evil: 
March 14, 2007 5:37:54 PM

Undeniable fact: When K8 was on top AMD raped us all to the maximum extent possible.

Fortunately, they don't get to do this with Barcelona 8)
March 14, 2007 5:41:30 PM

its about time they released something on their new architecture. This is great news for us. We now know that AMD has a plan and isnt just screwing with us to keep our loyalty. Hopefully these processors can compete well with C2D
March 14, 2007 5:47:50 PM

Quote:
Better marketing? Looks to me, regardless of capacity, that AMD was stiffing the consumer. I paid almost $300 for my x2 3800 and six months later, after the launch of core 2, it was selling for under $200. If AMD wanted a larger share of the market, they should have priced their cpu's accordingly. As mentioned earlier, they most likely couldn't keep up with demand in that situation. So, what do they do? They keep prices up and juice the consumer for all they're worth. Especially given the fact that when I bought my first E6400, with a little overclocking, it totally trounced the FX 62. Maybe AMD didn't see it coming, but maybe they could have gained more market share by offering their cpu's at a lower price point. So now, they are forced to cut prices more and cut their bottom line again and again. If they were better marketers, they should have lowered their prices a year ago. Not to the levels they are now, but even a 25% discount in price would have made them more money while simultaneously keeping their bottom line at reasonble levels. Of course they cpu market is volatile and hard to predict, but that just shows the arrogance of AMD in regards to the strength of their aging architecture, and their lack of confidence in Intel to come back and regain the performance crown. I'm all for AMD succeeding, but they need to rethink their marketing strategy and pay closer attention to the competition.


That was my whole point. Even if AMD was not in a position to supply demanded chips, the least they could've done was offer alternatives for the ones not selling as good. I remember times when the Opty 165 and 170 were out of stock or the x2-3800 for example, so why not lower the price on the chips that are not selling as well to make consumers happy? Even a modest price drop would've gone a long way. I realize that this is probably a lost cause argument and maybe I'm totally wrong here who knows ...

Perhaps a fishing trip to the dead sea is a better idea
March 14, 2007 5:47:53 PM

It is possible that each company would release their product as fast as they can complete engineering design and sampling, plus have manufacturing capacity to fulfill. It is a complicated process, one which I find it incredible how far they have come around.
And it is quite evident what can occur when a product is rushed to market...
Time will tell, but for now, I am pleased with my 3.2GHz E6600...
March 14, 2007 6:02:03 PM

AMD is going back to real clock rating? swosh?

They should keep in mind that they will look VERY pale in this comparison (why do even say pale, heck, white wall paint will be a joke)
March 14, 2007 6:06:41 PM

Quote:
OMG! AMD is actually going to release CPU's in the Sub 1000's, Very Very Impressive AMD :D 

*I can say Sub-1000's because their Quad FX CPU with the highest Ghz is 999$ so the 1.9Ghz-2.3Ghz should be around 300-600$Range
So the Dual-Core Kuma's should be in 200-400$Range(maybe more if they truly are 40% better)

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ :p  )


The sub 1000 release is entirely AMD's doing since they have fallen substantially behind Intel in performance (12 months). If Barcelona had released right after Core2Duo they could have went over 1000 but by release time the Core2Duo will have been out for a year and already have dropped 30% in price with Penryn warming up for launch.

The naming thanks to Intel and Core2Duo is relatively straight forward #cores and clock speed. Core2Duo finally put an end to Intel pushing the Netburst megahertz myth.

Yeah they sure did put an end to it and thats because they were getting spanked so hard by AMD. To be honest with you, I 'm not sure which one got spanked harder. AMD or Intel because if you think about it, its pretty pathetic that you are such a giant then a little company kicks your butt for a long time. Intel is expected to win here, not AMD
March 14, 2007 6:07:52 PM

Quote:
As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.


Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

I totally agree with you! The IT world would really profit from another player in the CPU business. Another player would put even more pressure on both AMD and Intel to sell their cpu's at even better prices that we see now, thus giving the buyer more choices at all price points. Ahhhh we can keep dreamin' !!!
March 14, 2007 6:32:20 PM

Undeniable fact: prior to K8 Intel raped us all the maximum extent possible!

What is your point?
March 14, 2007 6:43:57 PM

Regardless of the fakeness of the chart - a 2.9Ghz K10 dual core? This looks very pretty to my eyes.
March 14, 2007 6:51:07 PM

Seems like W0mbat revised his list once more, with Inclusion of Sempron x2 and very illustrious Energy Efficient Dual Core
AMD Athlon 64 x2 2300EE @ 35W(Nice, Very Nice :D  )

March 14, 2007 6:52:10 PM

Quote:
Undeniable fact: prior to K8 Intel raped us all the maximum extent possible!

What is your point?


:roll:

That both Intel and AMD will rape the consumer whenever possible. Despite your protestations to the contrary, AMD is hardly holding the moral high ground.
March 14, 2007 7:15:11 PM

Fact: Up until K8 AMD was always priced lower than Intel despite higher manufacturing costs.

Fact: Last quarter AMD posted a loss, despite selling more CPUs than ever before so tell me how their chips were overpriced!

Fact: Intel has continually raped the customer and will continue to do so as long it is allowed to.

AMD is not a charity, not some benevolent organisation. It's about time they made a healthy profit, that way they can keep on innovating. Without them clawing at Intels heels you'd be stuck with mediocre performance Intel chips at $1000 dollars a pop. 8O
March 14, 2007 8:46:19 PM

Quote:
Fact: Up until K8 AMD was always priced lower than Intel ...

And soon AMD will have TWICE launched products at higher prices than Intel: K8 + K10.

Quote:

Fact: Last quarter AMD posted a loss, despite selling more CPUs than ever before so tell me how their chips were overpriced!

Fool. I said AMDs pricing was obscene WHEN K8 was on top.

Quote:

Fact: Intel has continually raped the customer and will continue to do so as long it is allowed to.

Nonsense. Intels core arch (desktop and server) have been very reasonably priced. Both AMD and Intel will always shove their dicks up the consumers bum as far as they can given half a chance. Intel is no worse than AMD here as AMDs pre-core arch pricing has clearly shown.

Quote:

AMD is not a charity, not some benevolent organisation. It's about time they made a healthy profit, that way they can keep on innovating.

Again the same holds for Intel.

Quote:
Without them clawing at Intels heels you'd be stuck with mediocre performance Intel chips at $1000 dollars a pop. 8O

And without Intels core arch, you would be paying 50% more for Barcelona.
March 14, 2007 9:11:24 PM

Quote:
Nonsense. Intels core arch (desktop and server) have been very reasonably priced. Both AMD and Intel will always shove their dicks up the consumers bum as far as they can given half a chance. Intel is no worse than AMD here as AMDs pre-core arch pricing has clearly shown.


Man, you need to join a cult or something coz you are too easily led:!:

This round of cpu prices from Intel had to be reasonably because they had lost significant ground on AMD and were desperate to make up that lost ground.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think Intel would have been so reasonable without the advent of K8. Intel would have shoved Flameburst down your throat for the next five years if they could have gotten away with it.

You should be thanking AMD for the price of processors currently. K8 had Intel running scared and forced them to innovate and ultimately bring about this price war.
March 14, 2007 9:21:57 PM

Quote:
Fact: Up until K8 AMD was always priced lower than Intel despite higher manufacturing costs.


Because it was a small no-name compared to Intel.

Quote:

Fact: Last quarter AMD posted a loss, despite selling more CPUs than ever before so tell me how their chips were overpriced!

Because they were expanding like crazy which costs - surprise - money.

Quote:

Fact: Intel has continually raped the customer and will continue to do so as long it is allowed to.

Same goes for AMD or any corporation.

Quote:

AMD is not a charity, not some benevolent organisation. It's about time they made a healthy profit, that way they can keep on innovating. Without them clawing at Intels heels you'd be stuck with mediocre performance Intel chips at $1000 dollars a pop. 8O

No one is doubting that.
March 14, 2007 11:06:17 PM





I think this is great but they made a mistake. AMD says the 12xx series is Budapest, not Barcelona.

This may mean that the chips are ready to go in Sept. I wish I could get info on where Chartered and Fab 38 are. That will be ethe biggest clue to when those will release. Barcelona doesn't have to be high volume but Agena and Kuma do.
March 14, 2007 11:19:39 PM

Quote:
Undeniable fact: When K8 was on top AMD raped us all to the maximum extent possible.

Fortunately, they don't get to do this with Barcelona 8)



You're wrong. AMD is releasing Barcelona at the original price for Opteron. AND IT WILL BE WORTH IT.

I am a cheapskate and I was able to get an X2 for my needs. It was worth more than PD and could cost more. Barcelona is a monster and all derivatives should be at 30-40% higher price tan X2, especially the quads.
March 14, 2007 11:38:00 PM

Quote:

You should be thanking AMD for the price of processors currently. K8 had Intel running scared and forced them to innovate and ultimately bring about this price war.


So AMD caused this price war? Whats Baron complaining about then? :lol: 
March 14, 2007 11:43:24 PM

Quote:
Dzienkuje.

When did Poles invade Kazakhstan?
March 14, 2007 11:46:09 PM

Quote:
You should be thanking AMD for the price of processors currently. K8 had Intel running scared and forced them to innovate and ultimately bring about this price war.


This kind of argument is always stupid.

You should be thanking Intel for AMD's existence.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!